Attesting Outputs and Delegation Ancestry in Multi-Agent AI Systems
Open accessAbstract
Multi-agent applications delegate work across independently operated deployers. After an incident, a verifier must answer two questions: which deployer released the reported bytes, and whether each cross-deployer edge was authorized. Credentials establish who may act, but need not bind them to later output bytes or prove both deployers authorized a dynamically created edge. We present a two-layer attestation design for dynamic delegation without a shared authority, public log, or precommitted workflow. A trusted deployer runtime signs a hash of each released output; this records released bytes but does not prevent prompt injection. Ancestry evidence records edge authorization. Under a unified threat model, we compare a signed linked list, a Merkle-chain variant, and a co-signed DAG. The primitives are standard; the contribution is deployer-side binding and the evidence needed for the two questions. After child-key compromise, the single-signer designs permit an unauthorized parent binding, whereas the co-signed DAG rejects it because the parent must authorize the edge. Fixed adversary matrices and regression tests validate the composed verifier. On an Apple M1 Pro, ancestry-only checks take 24.3-499.2us per hop. In a live local multi-service workflow, a parent discovers the child's A2A Agent Card; the child calls an MCP tool and releases local-LLM output: all 30 signed-DAG tasks passed complete verification, while a controlled child-key-only claim was rejected; its mean end-to-end latency was 813.1ms versus 770.8ms without evidence. In a complementary three-availability-zone AWS deployment, all 1,000 valid co-signed-DAG paths verified; issuance averaged 3.651ms and complete verification 5.015ms. The cloud result excludes TLS/mTLS, KMS, and model-serving latency.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Attested delegation ancestry binds outputs to signed delegation paths, strengthening provenance for downstream verification.
“Attested delegation ancestry binds outputs to signed delegation paths, strengthening provenance for downstream verification [16, 25].”
From Authorization for Self-Modifying AI Agent Populations: Conserving Authority across Replacement, Forking, and Rollback (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- [1]S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. Narasimhan, and Y. Cao, 'ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,' arXiv:2210.03629, 2022. · arXiv
- [2]Q. Wu, G. Bansal, J. Zhang, Y. Wu, B. Li, E. Zhu, L. Jiang, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, J. Liu, A. H. Awadallah, R. W. White, D. Burger, and C. Wang, 'AutoGen: Enabling next-gen LLM applications via multi-agent conversation,' arXiv:2308.08155, 2023. · arXiv
- K. Greshake, S. Abdelnabi, S. Mishra, C. Endres, T. Holz, and M. Fritz, 'Not what you've signed up for: Compromising real-world LLMintegrated applications with indirect prompt injection,' in Proceedings of the 16th ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security (AISec '23) . ACM, 2023, pp. 79-90.
- [4]T. South, 'Authenticated delegation and authorized AI agents,' arXiv:2501.09674, 2025. · arXiv
- [6]Y. Li, Z. Fan, and Z. Zhuang, 'When AUC 0.998 is not enough: A candidate evaluation protocol for hidden-state probes of indirect prompt injection in multimodal computer-use agents,' 2026, camera-ready version for the Evaluation for Multimodal Generation Workshop (EvalMG 2026). [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22864 · arXiv
- [7]A. Chan, C. Ezell, M. Kaufmann, K. Wei, L. Hammond, H. Bradley, E. Bluemke, N. Rajkumar, D. Krueger, N. Kolt, L. Heim, and M. Anderljung, 'Visibility into AI agents,' in Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) . ACM, 2024, pp. 958-973.
- M. Llambí-Morillas and D. Fernández-Fernández, 'Toward cryptographically verifiable authorization for autonomous AI agents: A security hypothesis, preliminary formal model, and proof-of-concept implementation,' arXiv:2607.21325, 2026. · arXiv
- [13]S. Torres-Arias, H. Afzali, T. K. Kuppusamy, R. Curtmola, and J. Cappos, 'in-toto: Providing farm-to-table guarantees for bits and bytes,' in 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security) . USENIX Association, 2019, pp. 1393-1410.
- [15]S. Prakash, 'AIP: Agent identity protocol for verifiable delegation across MCP and A2A,' arXiv:2603.24775, 2026. · arXiv
- [16]A. Dalugoda, 'HDP: A lightweight cryptographic protocol for human delegation provenance in agentic AI systems,' arXiv:2604.04522, 2026. · arXiv
- [17]C. Ouyang and R. Hou, 'MemLineage: Lineage-guided enforcement for LLM agent memory,' arXiv:2605.14421, 2026. · arXiv
- [18]G. Racioppi, 'Mandato: Protocol-level enforcement of digitally signed mandates on AI agent actions with cryptographically chained audit trails,' arXiv:2608.14074, 2026. · arXiv
- [19]A. C. Myers and B. Liskov, 'A decentralized model for information flow control,' in Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP) . ACM, 1997, pp. 129-142.
- [22]D. J. Bernstein, N. Duif, T. Lange, P. Schwabe, and B. Yang, 'High-speed high-security signatures,' Journal of Cryptographic Engineering , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 77-89, 2012.
- [24]R. C. Merkle, 'Protocols for public key cryptosystems,' in Proceedings of the 1980 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy . IEEE, 1980, pp. 122-134.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhu, G., & Wang, C. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.00347
- Authors
- Liu, L., & Yu, H.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2608.30387
- OpenAlex
- W7204903411
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
- Keywords
- multi-agent AI, directed acyclic graphs, prompt injection
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review